2 a threat to free inquiry, to the free expression of ideas, and 3 to the very civil liberties long regarded as vital to the campus 4 5 6 7 8 9 community. This educational process has been neither quick nor cheap. Education seldom is. Given the natural tendencies of individuals in and around universities to "think otherwise" on specific issues, we at Stanford have achieved a remarkable degree of unity among 10 trustees, students, faculty, and alumni on the need to avoid 11 12 13 15 violence in resolving differences of opinion and on the need for firm action when that is required. Overwhelming majorities of these constituencies have made 14 clear their popposition to coercive tactics in several ways: (1) through resolutions and referenda; (2) through comprehensive reform of our campus judicial procedures; (3) through tacit or explicit approval of disciplinary steps taken within the campus community; and (4) through widespread support of resort to 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 civil authority when this has proven necessary. Most of this change has occurred within the past year. A specific contrast is instructive. In May, 1968, a majority of the Stanford faculty voted for amnesty for a group of students then occupying the Old A year later, the faculty almost unanimously endorsed our action incalling the police to end a sit-in at one of our principal administrative buildings, Encina Hall. The penalties subsequently imposed by the Stanford 1 2 3 4 Judicial Council G 7 constituted the broadest and most severe 8 9 10 disciplinary action taken on campus in several decades. Judging by newspaper accounts, the number and level of disciplinary actions taken by other academic institutions also rose markedly this spring. No doubt, the details at each institution varied. At 11 Stanford, the congruence of our plans and actions with the National Commission's recommendations was remarkable: 1. Our rules on campus disruptions were adopted after wide consultation with the constituencies involved. Formally endorsed by faculty representatives, the rules apply equally to students, faculty, and staff. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 was formally endorsed by students, faculty, and administrative officers. 3. Individuals chosen by students and by faculty comprise the Stanford Judicial Council. This group has the primary responsibility for recommending appropriate disciplinary sanctions, and these have gained very broad support from all campus constituencies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4. A small consultative group of faculty members, chosen by their colleagues, provided advice to me through out the year. This included a continuing, detailed examination of the same enforcement alternatives outlined by the National Commission as well as direct, on-the-spot evaluation of actual and anticipated disruptions on our campus. 5. While Stanford chose to place primary reliance on its own disciplinary procedures, the university never ruled out resort to civil authority. Our representatives consulted with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office for nearly a year on steps to be taken in the event outside assistance was needed. Arrangements were made for faculty observers to accompany police to witness actual events. We felt a faculty presence could exercise a moderating influence on any confrontation and help assure accurate reports of what 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 and understanding in this undertaking. took place. We found the Sheriff's Office unusually cooperative Following the police action at Encina, and on the same day, a restraining order was obtained from the court. An injunction was subsequently issued and has proven effective. 6. The campus substantially strengthened its own governmental mechanisms through the creation of a new faculty representative body (the Senate of the Academic 1 Council), the extension of student participation to virtually all university committes, and the creation of new consultative mechanisms involving students, faculty, and trustees (the University Advisory Committee). 7. Internal communication was markedly improved, both through face-to-face meetings and through new pub- Professors, staff members, and key students received 14 15 16 several ways. 17 responsibility. It also repeatedly endorsed, by overwhelming majorities, disciplinary actions taken by university officers, including the calling of police on campus. Faculty, students, and staff members worked together as individuals to facilitate discussion of controversial issues through conventional political means, both on and off campus. And, finally, alumni representatives endorsed actions taken by campus constituencies. In addition to these official actions, increasing numbers of individuals have made their opposition to coercive tactics 1 2 clear. 3 More than 30 students, acting as citizens and counter4 demonstrators, took hundreds of photographs and aided in the identification of individuals involved in the off-campus disruption at Stanford Research Institute's branch facility. 5 G 7 8 9 10. 11 12 13 14 15 Several faculty members, also acting on their own initiative circulated information on the objectives and tactics advocated Student volunteers pointed out and criticized specific tactics used to build support for demon by various protest groups. strations. At the initiative of Stanford faculty members, individual professors from 10 California colleges and universities recently met at Stanford to extend this kind of activity on a state wide basis next fall. (At this point Senators McClellan and Percy entered the the many official actions listed earlier, all point in the same direction toward a growing sentiment on campus against assurance that support for disruptive acts can be limited and that internal mechanisms can work. |